Reader comments
Readers' forum: Tort reform needed
40 comments | Read story
Tort impact | 7:06 a.m. July 30, 2009
The best information that I have seen is that malpractice payments constitute
close to 1% of health care costs, but generates close to 10% additional costs
due to defensive medicine. With complete tort elimination (do we really want
that?) we could theoretically save 11% on health care.
I pay 100K | 8:03 a.m. July 30, 2009
Every year I cough up 100K. Add that to the annual overhead of 300K to run my
office. Just to break even I need 400K.
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 8:09 a.m. July 30, 2009
Yes tort reform should be part of it a massive change in our health care system.
That does not mean that all we need is tort reform. We need a single payer
system, not what they are talking about now. See, even a liberal can disagree
with Obama. I never saw a conservative disagree with bush.
Anonymous | 8:19 a.m. July 30, 2009
As an attorney, and an Obama supporter, I do agree that tort reform should be on
the table. That being said, we should adopt the House version, including a
viable public option that will enhance competition and provide coverage for the
47 million who go wiothout.
RedShirt | 8:21 a.m. July 30, 2009
To "Anonymous | 8:09 a.m. " a single payer system wuld create a
monopoly. Isn't it monopolies that destroy advancement, and ultimately
create a system where the company or organization that controls the monopoly can
decrease quality while increasing price.
If a private sector monopoly is bad, what makes a government monopoly any better?
If a private sector monopoly is bad, what makes a government monopoly any better?
Anonymous | 8:29 a.m. July 30, 2009
Clearly, saying that the single payer concept is a monopoly indicates a failure
of understanding of the proposals. The current system is, in fact, nearing
disaster and meltdown.
RedShirt | 9:10 a.m. July 30, 2009
To "Anonymous | 8:29 a.m." if everybody is insured through a single
source, and that single source is controlled by a single governing body,
isn't that a monopoly?
If it isn't a monopoly, then please explain how it isn't a monopoly.
If it isn't a monopoly, then please explain how it isn't a monopoly.
to red | 9:12 a.m. July 30, 2009
"If a private sector monopoly is bad, what makes a government monopoly any
better?"
The fact that it is our collective monopoly. If it doesnt serve us well we will do something about it. I know it seems (and you have been told that it is) scary but the system we have now (for profit) is FAR worse. We can do better.
We need:
Many more teaching/public hospitals.
Many government small town clinics.
A way for new doctors to pay off their student loans with service.
Tort reform, including a cap on payouts.
Many more Nurse Practitioners to weed out the sniffles sufferers from using up doctors time.
A way for those who want to continue to use a for profit system.
People to work harder at staying healthy.
There are surely many other ideas I havent listed which will be needed, but staying the course is NOT an option. Staying the course will bankrupt the country. Right now it is the MAJOR cause of personal bankruptcy in the country.
Suggestions are helpful, complaints are not.
The fact that it is our collective monopoly. If it doesnt serve us well we will do something about it. I know it seems (and you have been told that it is) scary but the system we have now (for profit) is FAR worse. We can do better.
We need:
Many more teaching/public hospitals.
Many government small town clinics.
A way for new doctors to pay off their student loans with service.
Tort reform, including a cap on payouts.
Many more Nurse Practitioners to weed out the sniffles sufferers from using up doctors time.
A way for those who want to continue to use a for profit system.
People to work harder at staying healthy.
There are surely many other ideas I havent listed which will be needed, but staying the course is NOT an option. Staying the course will bankrupt the country. Right now it is the MAJOR cause of personal bankruptcy in the country.
Suggestions are helpful, complaints are not.
@tort impact | 9:20 a.m. July 30, 2009
wait a minute! so tort's account for about 1% of healthcare cost but
defensive medicine accounts for about 10%? It begs the question is it not the
paranoid defensive medicine that needs to be addressed and maybe just maybe we
should stop placing all of the blame on Lawyers and place at least some of the
blame on the insurance companies that are charging outrageous rates to doctors
for malpractice insurance which frankly would likely make doctors less paranoid
if they where not so concerned about the insurance companies rising their rates
constantly.
Ultra Bob | 9:39 a.m. July 30, 2009
A major part of the Conservative efforts to suppress the will of the people is
their war against the rights to seek redress for wrongs. If people are to be
the most important part of this nation, their power to combat the unscrupulous
and criminal must not be diminished.
It is the Capitalistic side of Health Care that wants to prevent people from having justice in the dealings with health care providers. These people want to have a completely free environment to do anything in the name of health care with no controls at all.
There are few, if any, criminal laws governing health care, and if the Tort reform comes about unscrupulous health care providers will be able to operate with complete abandon and have no care of the outcome.
The judicial part of our Constitution is every bit as important as the other parts, don’t let conservatives destroy this part of our Constitution.
It is the Capitalistic side of Health Care that wants to prevent people from having justice in the dealings with health care providers. These people want to have a completely free environment to do anything in the name of health care with no controls at all.
There are few, if any, criminal laws governing health care, and if the Tort reform comes about unscrupulous health care providers will be able to operate with complete abandon and have no care of the outcome.
The judicial part of our Constitution is every bit as important as the other parts, don’t let conservatives destroy this part of our Constitution.
Ultra Bob | 9:51 a.m. July 30, 2009
To RedShirt | 8:21 a.m.
The difference between a public and private monopoly depends on where you are standing.
If you are part of a private monopoly you are completely in control of the monopoly.
If you are outside the private monopoly you have absolutely no control over the monopoly.
In a public monopoly, everybody is a part of the monopoly and has a chance to control the operation of the monopoly.
The difference between a public and private monopoly depends on where you are standing.
If you are part of a private monopoly you are completely in control of the monopoly.
If you are outside the private monopoly you have absolutely no control over the monopoly.
In a public monopoly, everybody is a part of the monopoly and has a chance to control the operation of the monopoly.
lost in DC | 10:49 a.m. July 30, 2009
@tort impact 9:20, tort reform would reduce the need for defensive medicine,
brought about by fear of the harm ambulance chasing attorneys bring about. Even
if tort payments only add 1%, the premiums doctors pay are much more than that.
The 1% paid does not even consider the cost of the defense. Tort reform is not
the end-all be-all, but it needs to be an integral part of any health care
reform plan.
RedShirt | 10:50 a.m. July 30, 2009
To "@tort impact | 9:20 a.m." the insurance companies charge so much
for malpractice because it costs so much to defend a doctor. The average cost
to defend a doctor is $20,000. The more specialized the doctor is, typically
the more expensive the malpractice insurance becomes.
For example, an OB/GYNs in Florida, in 2004 paid $195,000 for malpractice insurance. Because of these high costs, fewer doctors want to go into that specialty. Doctors don't want to pay high insurance premiums, then have to spend a lot of time justifying themselves if a child has any problems.
For example, an OB/GYNs in Florida, in 2004 paid $195,000 for malpractice insurance. Because of these high costs, fewer doctors want to go into that specialty. Doctors don't want to pay high insurance premiums, then have to spend a lot of time justifying themselves if a child has any problems.
RedShirt | 10:57 a.m. July 30, 2009
To "Ultra Bob | 9:51 a.m." I can make the same arguement for a private
monopoly. Hence the reason we have laws that prevent companies from becoming
monopolies.
However, with a government monopoly, if the people in power believe it is necessary, they can force you to keep paying for it through the court system. A government monopoly is not under the control of the people, it is under the control of bureurocrats, and the leaders who appoint them. There is no way to prevent abuses within a government system. Only in a perfect world with perfect people in it could a government monopoly run in the best interest of all people. However, as the last few elections have shown, politics is no longer about doing what is best for the people, it is about political parties getting in power and staying there.
However, with a government monopoly, if the people in power believe it is necessary, they can force you to keep paying for it through the court system. A government monopoly is not under the control of the people, it is under the control of bureurocrats, and the leaders who appoint them. There is no way to prevent abuses within a government system. Only in a perfect world with perfect people in it could a government monopoly run in the best interest of all people. However, as the last few elections have shown, politics is no longer about doing what is best for the people, it is about political parties getting in power and staying there.
@I pay 100K | 11:12 a.m. July 30, 2009
Waaaaahhh. Most people in this state won't make the 400k you make just to
break even in 10 years.
Old Geezer | 11:31 a.m. July 30, 2009
Tort reform must be the first step to Health Care change. The medical industry
can't operate in fear of stupid lawsuits conjured up by "ambulance
chaser lawyers". Some lawyers are needed. Doctors, Dentists, Chemists,
Engineers and other technically trained peopls are far more valuable to America
then Lawyers. I am retired and am reasonably happy with my medicare, secondary
and prescription drug plan but Obama and the rest of Washington realize that by
destroying the present system they can destroy America. Everything he has done
has been destructive to America. Can we send him and Congress to Canada or
England where they can participate in their magnificant health care programs.
As far as the illegals are concerned send them home.
Anonymous | 11:32 a.m. July 30, 2009
Red shirt has no idea that people have successfully challenged the government
monopoly using our courts. I've dealt with government bureaucrats and
I've rarely lost. Give me a government bureaucrat over a arrogant
businesses.
I just start writing my representatives and calling their offices. It's not long before a bureaucrat comes around. I've had them write me letters of apology after they received inquiries from the governor's office.
When business take advantage of you, it's much harder to resolve.
I just start writing my representatives and calling their offices. It's not long before a bureaucrat comes around. I've had them write me letters of apology after they received inquiries from the governor's office.
When business take advantage of you, it's much harder to resolve.
RedShirt | 11:56 a.m. July 30, 2009
To "Anonymous | 11:32 a.m. " I know that as long as there are options
we will never have to worry about having to continually challenge
bureaucrats.
When my car insurance rate wet up by over 25% one year, I dropped them immediately. No fuss at all.
We shouldn't have to fight bureaucrats, at all. I have never had a problem with my insurance. They have always paid for the things that they have said they will pay for. The only fights I have had have been with the billing people at my dentist's office. Even with those people, the exchange lasts less than 10 minutes before the problem is fixed.
When my car insurance rate wet up by over 25% one year, I dropped them immediately. No fuss at all.
We shouldn't have to fight bureaucrats, at all. I have never had a problem with my insurance. They have always paid for the things that they have said they will pay for. The only fights I have had have been with the billing people at my dentist's office. Even with those people, the exchange lasts less than 10 minutes before the problem is fixed.
RedShirt | 12:03 p.m. July 30, 2009
To "Anonymous | 11:32 a.m. " so what you propose is that, rather than
taking our business elsewhere, that we clog up the court system?
Thinkin' Man | 12:04 p.m. July 30, 2009
When the problem with health care is cost, why do the President and
Congress's plans address everything EXCEPT cost??
lost in DC | 12:14 p.m. July 30, 2009
@I pay 100K 11:12. you don't understand what our doctor friend meant, do
you? With his office expenses and malpractice insurance premiums, he is $400K
in the hole before he even starts. you say most in this state don't make
that much in 10 years, do they start that far in the hole? Did you go to school
for an extra 8 years and come out with mountains of student loans to pay off?
Is it your job to deal with sick, whiney people all day? are you on call 24
hours a day? don't go belittling with your waaaaahhs until you know better
what you are talking about.
Brother Chuck Schroeder | 12:31 p.m. July 30, 2009
The way to fix health care is to lower the cost. The way to lower the cost is
simple. Tort reform. I'm not talking about those who have truly been a
victim of medical malpractice. I'm talking about greedy people out to get
rich quick. If frivolous lawsuits brought by overzealous ambulance chasers were
limited, then health care costs would go down dramatically. How do we do that?
Loser pays. It's that simple. Unfortunately, this will never happen while
the Democrats control Congress, and in a speech to the American Medical
Association, Obama himself stated that he would not support tort reform. People
please wake up to the fact that this is not about health care, this is about
turning your life and you future over to a socialistic President and an inept,
bungling and dishonest Congress. And one other unrelated note, I don't care
what financial strata you belong to, if Obama and Congress are left to their own
devices, your taxes, your health care and your living costs are going to rise
exponentially as the worthless money the Fed is printing starts taking hold and
inflation raises.
Matt (Las Vegas) | 12:36 p.m. July 30, 2009
There is no connection between outrageous medical malpractice insurance premiums
and litigation. Insurance companies sought to protect themselves by pushing for
malpractice caps or limits in every state, saying that they would have to
continue to raise premiums if their exposure wasn't limited. Well, guess
what? That line was persuasive enough to get the job done (the medmal caps were
instituted) and the insurance premiums didn't exactly become reasonable as
a result, did they?
wallofvoodoo | 12:43 p.m. July 30, 2009
How do you have $300K in overhead? You must be counting your wages in that
figure. I am certain that part of the problem is that the complexities of
medical billing are making the amount of work to bill insurance make a huge
amount of the overhead. Despite that, I am still skeptical $300k is a truly
accurate number.
It does beg the question. Part of the reason we have such complex billing is because unscrupulous doctors have & still do overbill insurance companies. It is a defense that the insurance companies have come up with to protect themselves. The consequence is higher costs for everyone.
The healthcare debate needs to include tort reform, billing changes & some teeth in fraud laws. That would bring costs way down.
It does beg the question. Part of the reason we have such complex billing is because unscrupulous doctors have & still do overbill insurance companies. It is a defense that the insurance companies have come up with to protect themselves. The consequence is higher costs for everyone.
The healthcare debate needs to include tort reform, billing changes & some teeth in fraud laws. That would bring costs way down.
So much wrong | 1:19 p.m. July 30, 2009
1. Defensive medicine has very little to do with malpractice insurance
companies, but everything to do with covering one's backside so that when
malpractice suits are filed, there is plenty of evidence that the docs did
everything in their power to make sure that nothing was missed. Even at that,
malpractice companies are more likely to seek a settlement rather than fight.
Also, a plaintiff can always find a physician in the same specialty who is
willing to say that something was missed or not done properly.
2. We spend BILLIONS of dollars on prolonging life, often for only hours or days, when the reality is that the everybody knows that the patient is going to die and that everybody dies eventually. I've seen patients who are in their 80's and 90's and not functional receive hundreds of thousands of $ in chemotherapy treatments, bypass surgeries, etc. These patients will never get better and their families often refuse to pay their outstanding balances when that patient dies, leaving providers holding the bag.
3. We can talk about covering everybody, but there just aren't enough primary care docs to treat them.
I could go on for days.
2. We spend BILLIONS of dollars on prolonging life, often for only hours or days, when the reality is that the everybody knows that the patient is going to die and that everybody dies eventually. I've seen patients who are in their 80's and 90's and not functional receive hundreds of thousands of $ in chemotherapy treatments, bypass surgeries, etc. These patients will never get better and their families often refuse to pay their outstanding balances when that patient dies, leaving providers holding the bag.
3. We can talk about covering everybody, but there just aren't enough primary care docs to treat them.
I could go on for days.
Thanks lost in DC | 1:35 p.m. July 30, 2009
To those who doubt--I have to collect 400K to pay for the overhead and
malpractice. It does not include any income to me. The office staff, rent,
materials, etc are 30K per month. I have people that bill and collect and
obtain pre-approval for procedures. I have a front office staff to greet and
process patients. I have back office staff to return phone calls and room and
process patients in the clinic. I pay a record room clerk to store and maintain
records. I pay radiology techs to shoot and process Xrays. I buy needles and
dressings and other office materials. Our fluoro equipment is maintained
regularly and cost 500K to purchase which I pay off monthly. I have 250 K in
student loans and I deferred income for 15 years. Despite that I am happy. I
enjoy my practice and enjoy helping patients. The numbers however, are real.
RedShirt | 1:43 p.m. July 30, 2009
To "So much wrong | 1:19 p.m." so what is your solution to your #2
problem? What is your criteria for stoping treatments that are beyond patching
them up and shipping them out?
Do we tall anybody over the age of 80 that they cannot get treatments anymore? Do well tell somebody who exihibits certain age related memory problems that they can't get treatments because they aren't going to live that long anyway?
Do we tall anybody over the age of 80 that they cannot get treatments anymore? Do well tell somebody who exihibits certain age related memory problems that they can't get treatments because they aren't going to live that long anyway?
to red | 3:20 p.m. July 30, 2009
in answer to your questions: No, no
RedShirt | 3:43 p.m. July 30, 2009
TO "to red | 3:20 p.m." you have only answered 2 of my questions.
So what is your solution to your #2 problem?
What is your criteria for stoping treatments that are beyond patching them up and shipping them out?
So what is your solution to your #2 problem?
What is your criteria for stoping treatments that are beyond patching them up and shipping them out?
So much wrong to Red Shirt | 4:49 p.m. July 30, 2009
The answer is that if we adopt a Canadian or European style system, that is
EXACTLY what will happen here, becasue it does there.
It's only fair. Think about it, do we, as a society, spend $200,000 on chemotherapy for an 80 year old, or do we use that money to pay for 2 10 year olds' liver transplants. It really is a 'zero-sum' game.
Real reform would include AT LEAST the following components:
1. Establish EVIDENCE-BASED treatment standards which would both guide doctors and protect them. These would take into account survival rate and age considerations.
2. Provide coverage for everyone (the 'how' is the hard part).
3. Make sure that people are held accountable for their behavior--drunks don't get liver transplants, 10 year olds do.
4. Tort reform that would protect docs who follow the guidelines from getting sued.
5. Expand primary care training programs and stop paying absurd amounts for some specialty services so that PCPs can be paid enough to pay off their school debts.
6. Regulate the insurance industry--another big social battle.
7. Make pharmacuetical companies charge the same everywhere.
So much wrong. We're rushing too much.
It's only fair. Think about it, do we, as a society, spend $200,000 on chemotherapy for an 80 year old, or do we use that money to pay for 2 10 year olds' liver transplants. It really is a 'zero-sum' game.
Real reform would include AT LEAST the following components:
1. Establish EVIDENCE-BASED treatment standards which would both guide doctors and protect them. These would take into account survival rate and age considerations.
2. Provide coverage for everyone (the 'how' is the hard part).
3. Make sure that people are held accountable for their behavior--drunks don't get liver transplants, 10 year olds do.
4. Tort reform that would protect docs who follow the guidelines from getting sued.
5. Expand primary care training programs and stop paying absurd amounts for some specialty services so that PCPs can be paid enough to pay off their school debts.
6. Regulate the insurance industry--another big social battle.
7. Make pharmacuetical companies charge the same everywhere.
So much wrong. We're rushing too much.
RE: Ultra Bob | 5:23 p.m. July 30, 2009
What public monopoly do YOU personally have control over?
THe governemnt won't even let us control our OWN SS,
that is actually our own money paid to us by our employer,
But you and yourefamily will NEVER a dime of it, because giovenment takes it away when you die.
So where is the control?
so don't kid yourself you have NO control over public monoplies any more than you have over any monopoly.
Heck, the progressives have already taken away the voice of the people by serverly limiting the size of the house,
and taking away the voice of the state by changing how senators are elected.
So NOW only large oraganizations, corporations, and very rich individuals control everyting.
By giving ALL the power and control to the governemnt you are giving them or an elitist cadre of people ALL the control.
THe governemnt won't even let us control our OWN SS,
that is actually our own money paid to us by our employer,
But you and yourefamily will NEVER a dime of it, because giovenment takes it away when you die.
So where is the control?
so don't kid yourself you have NO control over public monoplies any more than you have over any monopoly.
Heck, the progressives have already taken away the voice of the people by serverly limiting the size of the house,
and taking away the voice of the state by changing how senators are elected.
So NOW only large oraganizations, corporations, and very rich individuals control everyting.
By giving ALL the power and control to the governemnt you are giving them or an elitist cadre of people ALL the control.
RE :Bro Schroeder | 1:06 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
You and others on here are a perfect example of social engineering and
propaganda sucsess.
Tort cases account for 1% of costs yet if you were called on a jury you have an obvious bias that these cases are "about people trying to get rich quick".
I wish you could see what a malpractice case actually looks like from the inside. It's not pretty. If someone has died you have to prove that the person would not have dies anyway. You have to face a scared and defiant doctor population that is scared to testify against each other for fear of the insurance companies reprisal. And you have to face pre-propagandized jurys. There's more but it's hard to put 8 years of legal injustice in 200 words.
Tort cases account for 1% of costs yet if you were called on a jury you have an obvious bias that these cases are "about people trying to get rich quick".
I wish you could see what a malpractice case actually looks like from the inside. It's not pretty. If someone has died you have to prove that the person would not have dies anyway. You have to face a scared and defiant doctor population that is scared to testify against each other for fear of the insurance companies reprisal. And you have to face pre-propagandized jurys. There's more but it's hard to put 8 years of legal injustice in 200 words.
afraid of control | 1:15 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
Sorry bud we are being manipulated now and most don't even know it.
But's it's the people you support that are doing the manipulating.
Who controls the food supply controls the people;
who controls energy can control whole continents;
who controls money controls the world."
Henry Kissinger
The insurance agencies control the money to the health care system.
Who controls the food supply controls the people;
who controls energy can control whole continents;
who controls money controls the world."
Henry Kissinger
The insurance agencies control the money to the health care system.
Bro Joe Populus | 1:39 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
There's allready "loser -pays" in many states. Idaho for sure.
And to even get a malpractice case into court you have to have have sufferd something really bad and the lawyers who face huge expenses to take the case are allready VERY selective. They know how powerfull medical lobbying is and how much they have chipped away at our rights over the last 20 years. They know they have a tough time convincing jurys that have been pre-propagandized the lie that it's these cases that are destrying healthcare. They know just how much sway the health insurance agency had over doctors and hospital administrators that may testify. Yet you ignorantly believe that malpractice cases need more barriers to justice?
And to even get a malpractice case into court you have to have have sufferd something really bad and the lawyers who face huge expenses to take the case are allready VERY selective. They know how powerfull medical lobbying is and how much they have chipped away at our rights over the last 20 years. They know they have a tough time convincing jurys that have been pre-propagandized the lie that it's these cases that are destrying healthcare. They know just how much sway the health insurance agency had over doctors and hospital administrators that may testify. Yet you ignorantly believe that malpractice cases need more barriers to justice?
Gatekeepers of health | 1:59 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
It's about time american's actually turned on the insurance companies
that are actually causeing this problem. They have garnerd a near 100%
gatekeeper position to healthcare. How did healthcare prices get high enough for
the average person to not even be able to think about paying for it directly?
Does it look like a free market system? Remember a 100 years ago we paid what we
could in chickens and eggs.
The fact is that countries that have had real health care reform have kicked out the insurance agencies. Insustrialized nations with socialist health care systems pay half as much as we do per capita for helth care and they cover everyone.
The claim that insurance companies only make 3% profits is extremely missleading, ignoring the many layers of insurance premiums paid for my health providers and health care recipients. It ignores the diabolical and ingenious ways moneies are drained from companies as well. Spend some time on finance forums.
Tort reform is a red herring and always has been.
It's just like hydrogen cars for the oil industy.
Study propaganda techniques - it's enlightening.
The fact is that countries that have had real health care reform have kicked out the insurance agencies. Insustrialized nations with socialist health care systems pay half as much as we do per capita for helth care and they cover everyone.
The claim that insurance companies only make 3% profits is extremely missleading, ignoring the many layers of insurance premiums paid for my health providers and health care recipients. It ignores the diabolical and ingenious ways moneies are drained from companies as well. Spend some time on finance forums.
Tort reform is a red herring and always has been.
It's just like hydrogen cars for the oil industy.
Study propaganda techniques - it's enlightening.
rnoble | 3:30 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009
i have said it before and say it again HEALTH CARE REFORM SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT
INSURANCE COVERAGE BUT ABOUT HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND COSTS---
insurance adds cost to health care in two ways that i can think of: 1)the insurance company takes some of the health care money for administration and profit and 2)medical offices have to hire extra people or systems for insurance billing and paperwork---related and perhaps causal is the disconnect between services and payment that makes people ignore costs because someone else is paying---i recently went to a physical therapist who could not tell me even what the price would be because they dealt only thru an offsite billing company and did little or no uninsured business---
tort reform is not a red herring because it is needed; not just for medical cases but also for general industry etcetera---it is one piece of the health care issue, however, and should not be ignored---
insurance adds cost to health care in two ways that i can think of: 1)the insurance company takes some of the health care money for administration and profit and 2)medical offices have to hire extra people or systems for insurance billing and paperwork---related and perhaps causal is the disconnect between services and payment that makes people ignore costs because someone else is paying---i recently went to a physical therapist who could not tell me even what the price would be because they dealt only thru an offsite billing company and did little or no uninsured business---
tort reform is not a red herring because it is needed; not just for medical cases but also for general industry etcetera---it is one piece of the health care issue, however, and should not be ignored---
Tort reform | 12:13 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009
You know what? Some of the right wing believe anything people here are going to
have something happen to them someday and they will actually need help from the
legal system. You'll find out then that you can't get a lawyer to take
your case unless it's absolutly sure that you were harmed by the doctor.
But the odds will still be agaist you of recieving any compensation at all. Tort
reform allready happened - did it lower health care prices?Doctors will never
liked being sued but neither doesd anybody else. Why are they so different? Most
states allready have caps and all kinds of barriers for medical malpractice. Yet
this dicussion acts as if we need to get started with reform.
Keep being missled and mouthy. That's just what they wanted. And you work for these propagandist for free - amazing.
Keep being missled and mouthy. That's just what they wanted. And you work for these propagandist for free - amazing.
scare tactics | 12:38 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009
An 80 year old getting chemotherapy...
The basis for a patient qualifing for chemotherapy is dependent on them being strong enough to take it and not dying from the chemo. Not thier age. There are plenty of 8 year olds that can't survive chemotherapy so thier doctors refuse to give it to them.
If a Dr. can find an 80 year old in Canada that is strong enough I'm sure they would do it. Or do you and the repeaters have some facts that 80 year olds don't recieve any expensive life saving medical treatments in Canada?
And the statistics are even lower. 0.46% of healthcare cost are related to lawsuits and the averge payout is $265k. The lawyers take a third so the patients don't get that much for thier injuries. In Canada they get sued much less and pay out 300k on average - yet they spend 55% what we do on healthcare.
Defensive medicine the culprit? Well, not really. Fact based medicine required lot of expensive tests as well. THE PROBLEM IS WE PAY TOO MUCH FOR THE TESTS. Do you want your Dr to guess and play the odds?
The basis for a patient qualifing for chemotherapy is dependent on them being strong enough to take it and not dying from the chemo. Not thier age. There are plenty of 8 year olds that can't survive chemotherapy so thier doctors refuse to give it to them.
If a Dr. can find an 80 year old in Canada that is strong enough I'm sure they would do it. Or do you and the repeaters have some facts that 80 year olds don't recieve any expensive life saving medical treatments in Canada?
And the statistics are even lower. 0.46% of healthcare cost are related to lawsuits and the averge payout is $265k. The lawyers take a third so the patients don't get that much for thier injuries. In Canada they get sued much less and pay out 300k on average - yet they spend 55% what we do on healthcare.
Defensive medicine the culprit? Well, not really. Fact based medicine required lot of expensive tests as well. THE PROBLEM IS WE PAY TOO MUCH FOR THE TESTS. Do you want your Dr to guess and play the odds?
Anonymous | 1:38 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009
Canadians live longer than we do. And you would say that canada is killing off
old people with denying treatment? What health care crisis is canada facing?
They spend half as much as we do and cover everyone.
CANADA VS. USA
Stats for all countries available at the World Health Organization. 2006 stats :
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $):
Canada 36,280
USA $ 44,070
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years):
Canada 78/83
USA 67/71
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003):
Canada 70/74
USA 75/80
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births):
Canada 6 in 1000
USA 8 in 1000
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population):
Canada 89/55
USA 137/80
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006):
Canada 3,672
USA 6,714
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006):
Canada 10.0
USA 15.3
CANADA VS. USA
Stats for all countries available at the World Health Organization. 2006 stats :
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $):
Canada 36,280
USA $ 44,070
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years):
Canada 78/83
USA 67/71
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003):
Canada 70/74
USA 75/80
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births):
Canada 6 in 1000
USA 8 in 1000
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population):
Canada 89/55
USA 137/80
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006):
Canada 3,672
USA 6,714
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006):
Canada 10.0
USA 15.3
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Utes determined to finish strong 9:13 p.m.
- For RSL, being late worked 9:10 p.m.
- Price man on trial for hostage case 9:08 p.m.
- Matheson phone meets reach 10K 9:01 p.m.
- Can BYU throw vs. Air Force? 8:56 p.m.
- Air Force wants to make it the 'Big 4' 8:55 p.m.
- 4A: Timpview defense stepped up 8:54 p.m.
- 4A: Mistakes robbed Springville 8:53 p.m.
- RSL hopes to team up on L.A. stars 8:52 p.m.
- Beckham says he'll be ready 8:47 p.m.
- Mailman's nomination delivered
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio
- U. professor dies after fall from bus
- 'New Moon' rising: Vamps vs. 'wolves
- Horrifying scenario described
- Archuleta still calls Utah home
- 4A: Timpview wins 4th title, 4 years
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case
- Utah jobless rate at 6.5%
- Unga's status 'a game-time decision'
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
182 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah166
- BYU, Utah struck gold in coaches123
- Lies shatter Utah family122
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified100
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case95
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio94
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.94
- Utes knock off rival Aggies92
- Huntsman pleased with Obama84
I don't pretend to be an expert on global warming. I've met with...
Latest comments
And since NYC is a bigger city than SLC, obviously the Nicks are a better...
I’m thrilled to hear about this! Where can I get one of those moon jar...
Robbed???????
Does anyone who supports this really think this is only going to cost what...
Very good Bingham!!!
yeah buddy!!!!! go bingham!!!
May I suggest you read the 3rd paragraph for the final score. I can only...
I wonder were Richie is going next year.
My Opinion you (for some reason) say: "This thread gives away the snobby...
@FYI, did you not read the article? You just used the exact same lame,...
Advertisements
But the insurance industry takes advantage of the current system as well. A friend was involved in a project where he was forced to pay for an out of court settlement to an insurance company because it was more financially advantageous to do so than to fight the insurance company lawyers. The insurance company knew my friend was not at fault but wanted to recoup money they had paid out in a claim to one of their policy holders. My friend was advised that it would be less costly to pay $10,000 in an out of court settlement than to fight the insurance company and their stable of lawyers.
And when you complain about the high cost of medical malpractice insurance remember who is setting those rates - the insurance industry that continues to prosper greatly even during this economic downturn.